Significance of 'intelligence' - to the industrial revolution

[Nereid]

The genesis of this thread is Why this is still Amerikkka, where there was a lively discussion of the extent to which many sub-Saharan countries are still economically undeveloped as a result of the genes of their inhabitants, the extent to which those genes are responsible for agriculture and sedantry animal husbandry not having developed independently there, and other nonsenses.

This one is somewhat out of sequence, (being #3) and I would like to split it into two parts - pre-Industrial Revolution and post.

The first in this series Why agriculture and animal husbandry? also contains the general background, extracted from the Amerikkka thread.

Some additional, relevant posts in that thread:

Look at it simply: the first person or people to come up with the concept of agriculture radically changed his/her civilization, and gave that civilization a huge advantage over others. The first person to come up with an internal combustion engine did so, as well. Look around you -- there are hundreds of different techniques, materials, processes, and concepts all around you that someone had to invent or stumble across -- everything from number systems to financial systems to government structures to metal-working techniques to building techniques to industrial machines, each building on earlier successes.

Why were these people the first to come up with these concepts? Was it purely by chance or was it due to intelligence? Could someone who is mentally disabled with the mind of a 2 year old be able to stumble onto these inventions?

That's essentially what I'm trying to say -- what began as a very small advantage ten thousand years ago, achieved via sheer chance, would bloom into a tremendous advantage today.

What impact would the intelligence level of that group have in their technological development?

And when thrown into the same atmosphere, the same society, assuming every race was equal in every single way, shouldn't it mean that every race should succeed equality in every single way as well?

No, because it's unlikely that one individual in every such civilization would come up with civilization-changing ideas like agriculture, money, the place system, the loom, etc. at the same time. The first culture to gain a slight advantage over the others, even by pure chance, would have rapidly advanced over the others. The people who caused such advancement were particularly gifted, and particularly gifted people certainly occur in every culture.

Certainly civilization-changing concepts and inventions are due to exceptionally bright people. That doesn't mean that person's entire culture is more intelligent than the others on average, however. The majority of inventions that changed history can be attributed to either an individual, or a very small number of people.

Are you suggesting that intelligence does play a role in technological advancements? Would you suggest that some groups (races) of people have more intelligent people then others?

While it is true that advancements are made by the elite rather than the average, a higher median level for intelligence by a random group, would also likely mean there would be more elites.

Are you suggesting that intelligence does play a role in technological advancements?

Of course, it would be asinine to say it didn't. Technological advancement requires intelligent individuals. What I don't feel is important is some notion of the intelligence of an entire group or race of people -- since most important inventions, again, were invented by particularly gifted individuals or small groups of people, and particularly gifted people exist in every group.

Would you suggest that some groups (races) of people have more intelligent people then others?

No, that's entirely my point. You don't need to invoke some generalization about Europeans being smarter than Africans to explain their present-day lead in technology. It can be explained neatly, I think, by exponential technological growth seeded by largely chance events that happened a very long time ago.

(to be continued)

 

[Nereid]

(continued)

Chance means the happenstance birth of an especially gifted person who happens to enjoy education and happens to have the socioeconomic status to obtain that education and happens to choose to study some topic that could have a particularly large impact on his society and happens to stumble across a new way to do something in that topic. *huff puff, run on sentence* Chance, in this context, is not a difficult thing to understand either.

Does chance require all the variables, gifted, education, socioeconomic status, etc? What about those who have invented technologies and didn't have an education, weren't born into a high socioeconomic status, etc? Can we use chance to show that all races are indeed the same and have the same abilities? How does inheritability of intelligence play into the theory of chance? What about the studies one twins?

I don't think that the assertion that different human races have different cognitive abilities and personalities is really that outrageous. I read two popular books about intelligence. The first one was "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" by Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein. The second was "The Intelligence of Dogs: Canine Consciousness and Capabilities" by Stanley Coren. Both books were best sellers in 1994 and both books were heavily reviewed in magazines and newspapers. I retrieved about 200 pages of commentary from newspapers and magazines via an online database to see how the media would review "The Bell Curve." The primary means used to rebut its research results was to dismiss heredity as the cause for the differences in the IQ scores of people. Over and over again it was pointed out, "if only the disadvantaged had the same upbringing as the privileged they would also score high on IQ tests." It was obvious to me that dogma could not allow honest research about the differences in IQ. The social agenda for promoting the equality of condition over the past 30 years would be in jeopardy. At any cost to open scholarly debate, the results of "The Bell Curve" must be refuted by any means available. To me, the acceptance that IQ was inherited was so commonly accepted by the public and academicians alike, how could this serious work be so robustly and virulently attacked and still become a best seller?

With some similarities, "The Intelligence of Dogs" was reviewed with trepidation, not wanting to learn that "my dog" was not rated as intelligent. Like humans, dogs all belong to the same species. Different breeds were developed by selecting the desired attributes of a dog and breeding like dogs together, always keeping a perfect archetypical prototype in mind of the desired goal. Humans do not practice overt eugenics (breeding), but we know that the brains of canines and humans have the same structure and the rules of genetics are the same. Humans practice assortative mating, and studies going back to the 1940's show that IQs of spouses correlate powerfully. That is, like people marry. In general, the smart marry the smart, especially since the advent of the birth control pill, universal higher education, and increased mobility.

In stark contrast, "The Intelligence of Dogs" reviewers totally and completely bought into the concept that the difference between the intelligence of different breeds was heredity, not the environment that the dog was raised in. The book listed the Border collie as the most intelligent (a working dog) and the Afghan hound the least intelligent (the pampered pet of choice for the elite rich). Without a single dissention or even a glimmer of doubt the wide gaps in intelligence between breeds of dogs was readily accepted. Not one critic wrote that if only the Afghan had the right social economic opportunity as the typical Border collie, it too could be smart. Maybe those rich folks and all that pampering makes them stupid. Not once did I read that "a dog's home, neighborhood, training, duties-- the sum of the dog's life experiences -- are equally if not more important than heredity." Not once did I read "if environment plays a role of anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent in determining a dog's brainpower, such factors as adequate nutrition, stable family life, a moral life and a safe community to grow up in might make the crucial difference that ensures a dog will have a productive adulthood." Not once did I read "No such group genetic comparisons can be fair until Afghans and Border collies grow up in comparable environments for several generations." Not once did I read "Coren makes no effort to measure or quantify or assess the powerful role of environment or to consider how it can mitigate their grim predictions of underclass disaster for the poor Afghans."

I do not think that one can take a point in time in the temporal continuum…see what race or region is more technologically advanced, then therefore conclude that that race is superior. This is what some people are alluding or stating when they juxtapose the technological advancement with Africa, with that of Europe.

If such reasoning were valid, one would then ask the question of why and how the Egyptians were so advanced, while the Aryan whites of Europe were living very primitive conditions. The Egyptians were not white like Europeans. Egypt is on the African Continent, although the people were not what we would consider Negroes either. But that is beside the point. If these people were much superior at a point in time, why are not they leading the world today? Thus, I believe this shows to any objective person that who is in front at a point in time in history does not prove an racial superiority.

Also, advancement is like stair steps. One step allows access to the others. The industrial revolution was a step up taken by Europeans, from the steps created in the past by others. Civilization started in Mesopotamia. The Egyptians then advanced humanity. When Egypt fell, the conquerors inherited what Egypt had learned. Then Greece became the power and advanced the knowledge of the Egyptians. Then the Romans Advanced the knowledge built from the Greeks. Then the Barbarians (I wonder what their SES levels were) invasion destroyed Rome, which opened up the era for the domination of Western Europe, who inherited all this knowledge from previous empires.

Trade, militarism and exploitation levels has most often been the conduit to advancement. Trade routes did not develop into the African interior until relatively recently in human history. Africa was not on or in the path of warring and competing empires, or the major trade routs. The Arab slave traders made some roots into East and Northern Black Africa, looking only for slaves.

Also, we must remain cognizant that necessity is the mother of invention. The fact that Africa did not advance to the same degree is likely because they had no pressing need to. One must remember that Africans have been around, according to anthropologist, longer than any other humans, because it is believed that Africa is where humans began. Obviously the black African was doing something right…because we are still here and still growing.

I had to burst some bubbles, however, in NATURE, the only measure of success is in a species or lifes ability to perpetuate its existence via its bloodline. THATS IT. That is the second most prime diretive of all life, behind only survival. That is the ultimate goal of all life and the ultimate measure of success in nature...by those standards...Africans have always been successful, despite disease, famine, droughts, wars, slavery, colonizaition...and we are still growing in numbers.

In most human societies for the past few thousand years at least, the social status of the family into which you were born was far more important than your intelligence.

Possibly. But the only thing I was trying to point out was that with everything else being equal, higher intelligence will give an individual more opportunities to be in higher SES than a person with lower intelligence.

For this to have relevance, you also need to show that intelligence is a significant factor, not just any old factor. As I said, for the overwhelming majority of humans, intelligence is clearly NOT the most important factor (my guess is the most important would be sex/gender), and even in the US today, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that class (as appropriately defined sociologically) and English language fluency are more important.

Even to make my poing more, What about the greeks? Why are not the greeks leading the world today in advancement and science like they once did? Even more puzzling is why the Asian populations, who median IQ's are above whites. WHy did not they create the industrial revolution? Why do not they create most of the patents and inventions today? I am sure you will say that it is their political construct, but what does the political construct have to do with intelligence? Maybe it is the cultural and political constructs of Africa that kept them from advancing too...NO, it has to be their lack of intellect relative to whites and others.

(to be continued)

 

[Nereid]

I just want to point out here, for all the posters that will accept no argument other than that African people are intrinsically less intelligent and probably more barbaric than all other humans, think about one thing. Even if that is the case, there must be a reason for it. We all came from a common population at some point. Variation came later, and if that variation includes subpopulations (and eventually races) with lower than average intelligence, then intelligence was not selected for as frequently as in other populations for a reason. You just might consider that maybe the reason something like that might happen is because civilization is more difficult to develop on a continent

1) That is covered in either desert, rainforest, or savannah laden with large predators and bad soil.

2) That has no easily navigable rivers and few good harbors.

3) Does not have cold weather and thus does not give much need for well-built shelter.

4) Does not have easily accessed resources, such as metals and wood, that could be used to build.

The point being that, on a continent with no civilization, high intelligence will be selected for less frequently than on a continent that has high intelligence. A continent like Africa is more likely to have speed, strength, dexterity, and such selected for. You get the picture. You can still be a racist without arguing against all of my points - if that makes a difference.

*This is, of course, in reference to sub-Saharan Africa.

Can you tell me how evolution would select high intelligence in a developed nation, and low intelligence in an underdeveloped nation?

...in the 150 years since such "development" started.

No - I'm just trying to get these people to quit arguing with all of what I say.

Next, some relevant posts from the 'agriculture' thread ...

 

[Nereid]

I would be interested to learn how the desert is favorable to intellectual accomplishment, but Sub-Saharan Africa is not. I would also be interested to know if all lands occupied by Negroids are poor with respect to organic matter. I am unaware of any Negroid nations that have contributed significantly to human accomplishment. Are there any? If so, what are their accomplishments and how to they compare to those of Asian and European nations?

The same questions can be raised about the tribes in the Amazon Jungle of South America. You could be describing them. It does appear to be more an issue of environment than anything else.

Egypt produced the only purely solar calendar in the ancient world. It is considered highly possible that contributions from sub-saharan Africa provided the underlying understanding that enabled the Egyptians to take advantage of their geography to develop such a calendar.

I presume you understand that Egypt is neither Sub-Saharan, nor a Negroid nation. There are many Negroid nations in Africa and other parts of the world. Is there some reason for not simply explaining why none of them have produced significant intellectual accoumplishments? Or, just provide a list.

It is reasonably obvious that the very low IQs associated with Negroid nations have prevented them from the sorts of intellectual and cultural accomplilshments that have been seen throughout nations populated by the other two primary racial groups. Consider for example: architecture; written language and literature; science; mathematics; medicine; industrialization; even the elementary concept of the wheel; communications; engineering; government; legal systems; monitary systems; naval ships; flight; geographical exploration and mapping; manufacturing; the creation of sophisticated musical instruments; sophisticated written music (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc.); sophisticated works of art; and universities.

Which negorid nations have excelled in any of the above list? Can you compare the intellectual accomplishments (as above) for any Sub-Saharan or other Negroid nation to those of any European country?

All the accomplishment on your list have evolved due to the development of agricultural development and war needs. Agriculture had an advantage of given most free time to agricultural society and this free time resulted in increase needs to know and fixed other needs. Most of the the accomplishment are luxury to survival.

As for medicine, I would say that many univeristy researchers are going in africa to find plant with medical properties that some tribes have been using for century before with had any sound medical knowledge.

Your comment is also racist based on either on poor science or on misconception. As far I as I concern, IQ does not equal to intelligence and the ability to create.

I was unaware of that. Perhaps you can explain it by considering the items I listed:
architecture
written language
literature
science
mathematics
medicine
industrialization
the wheel
communications
engineering
government
legal systems
monitary systems
ships
flight
geographical exploration
mapping
manufacturing
sophisticated musical instruments
sophisticated written music
sophisticated works of art
universities.
[...]
Do you believe that the items I listed are related to IQ? I assume you don't, but you have the opportunity to say so. For example, do you think that there are successful mathematicians who have IQs at or below 100? Do you believe there are any Nobel Laureates in science or medicine with IQs below 130? Do you believe that Richard Lynn was right or wrong in concluding that the wealth of nations can be shown to relate to the mean IQs of those nations?

I don't believe that IQ play the largest role in developing most of the items listed. I have seen people with average IQ bring incrediable innovation. When there is need, a creative person will fix it.

There's some more in that thread, but this is, I think, the essential background.

 

[Nereid]

INTENT OF THIS THREAD (please read)

For the avoidance of doubt, what I would like to accomplish in this thread is as follows:
1) a scientific look at the extent to which the 'intelligence' of an individual was a factor in her or his success in the society in which she or he lived, before the Industrial Revolution. But not in isolation, in relation to other factors.
2) a discussion of the extent to which a scientific study of the 'intelligence' of any pre-Industrial Revolution society is possible.

Why limit the scope to pre-Industrial Revolution times? Many reasons, but primarily because that was the transition to large manufacturing-based economies, and around the start of the most dramatic demographic change for Homo sap.

Another reason is that I want to separate discussion of 'intelligence' for times after the concept began to receive scientific attention from that before.

Finally, please note that the factors which lead to the independent development of civilisations is not the focus of this thread (that is #2, yet to be started).

 

[Nereid]

RE: the extent to which the 'intelligence' of an individual was a factor in her or his success in the society in which she or he lived, before the Industrial Revolution. But not in isolation, in relation to other factors.

My feeling is that a person's smarts was at best a minor factor in their social or economic success, in pre-Industrial Revolution societies, throughout the world (some possible exceptions).

First, almost all human social groups were patriarchal, so (with some exceptions) one's gender/sex was clearly a dominant factor.

Next, most social groups - other than hunter-gatherers? - were hierarchical, with strata membership determined mostly by birth or marriage. Social mobility as we know it today simply didn't exist. Did wars provide an opportunity for social mobility?

 

[hitssquad]

The g factor and individual success vs the g factor and group success

The genesis of this thread is Why this is still Amerikkka, where there was a lively discussion of the extent to which many sub-Saharan countries are still economically undeveloped as a result of the genes of their inhabitants...

For the avoidance of doubt, what I would like to accomplish in this thread is as follows:
1) a scientific look at the extent to which the 'intelligence' of an individual was a factor in her or his success in the society in which she or he lived, before the Industrial Revolution.

If the genesis of this thread is a discussion of the extent to which many sub-Saharan countries are still economically undeveloped as a result of the genes of their inhabitants, why is it a goal of the thread to look at the role of the g factor in the success of individuals? To be consistent, wouldn't we be looking at the role of the g factor in the success of groups?

 

[Nereid]

If the genesis of this thread is a discussion of the extent to which many sub-Saharan countries are still economically undeveloped as a result of the genes of their inhabitants, why is it a goal of the thread to look at the role of the g factor in the success of individuals? To be consistent, wouldn't we be looking at the role of the g factor in the success of groups?

[just an explanation, not a contribution to this thread]Well, that's what 2) is about, but I personally am quite interested to understand better what can be determined about the importance of 'intelligence' for the success of individuals, up to the time of the Industrial Revolution. My interest was triggered by some of the posts in that other thread ... hence the thread generated my interest.[/just an explanation, not a contribution to this thread]

Oh, and in case anyone is unsure, I am interested in this topic globally, not just one or two regions.

 

[selfAdjoint]

New paper on IQ and national development

This important http://www.siue.edu/~garjone/JonesSchneApr.pdf shows that of all the dozens of variables in thousands of regeressions for national development, IQ is statistically the most important.

From the abstract:

Human capital plays an important role in the theory of economic growth, but it has been difficult to measure this abstract concept. We survey the psychological literature on cross-cultural IQ tests and conclude that modern intelligence tests provide one useful measure of human capital. Using a new database of national average IQ along with a methodology derived from Sala-i-Martin [1997a], we show that in growth regressions that include only robust control variables, IQ is statistically significant in 99.7% of these 1330 regressions. A 1 point increase in a nation’s average IQ is associated with a persistent 0.16% annual increase in GDP per capita.

 

[Bystander]

This important http://www.siue.edu/~garjone/JonesSchneApr.pdf shows that of all the dozens of variables in thousands of regeressions for national development, IQ is statistically the most important.

From the abstract:

(snip)
A 1 point increase in a nation’s average IQ is associated with a persistent 0.16% annual increase in GDP per capita.

"GDP per capita" can be manipulated to be/mean anything --- the reliability of the statistics (

IQ is statistically significant in 99.7% of these 1330 regressions.

) has to doubted on the basis of literacy rates in OPEC nations, their GDP "growth" rates, and measures of national development; one objection regarding connection of "intelligence" to rates of social/cultural development in groups, is that when the development rates are tied to "economic" constructs, the lack of correspondence of definitions between the fields of economics and psychology is going to hinder productive discussion.

 

[Nereid]

This important http://www.siue.edu/~garjone/JonesSchneApr.pdf shows that of all the dozens of variables in thousands of regeressions for national development, IQ is statistically the most important.

From the abstract:

Thanks SelfAdjoint (and Bystander).

I was kinda hoping to leave discussion of this area until later, and in another thread; for this thread (and this aspect), I'd like to focus on the question of whether a scientific study of the 'intelligence' of any pre-Industrial Revolution society is possible, and if it is, how one would go about doing such a study.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'll start another thread then. It is an important issue and I do want to respond to Bystander without hijacking this one.

 

[Nereid]

Is scientific study of the 'intelligence' pre-Industrial Revolution society possible?

Thinking about how one might go about such a study ...
a) start with a good (biological, sociological) theory of intelligence, plug in inputs relevant to a past society (appropriately constrained), turn the handle ...
b) look for outputs e.g. - a society with 'high intelligence' will (or will not) do the following in the following degree {list}, cf one with 'low intelligence'
c) weighted mean of all members of the society, e.g. 1 king (mean intelligence 80-120), 1 million peasant farmers (mean intelligence 75-115), ...

Obviously enormous challenges with all these approaches, even for a recent past society that is both small(ish) and well-studied.

Anyone else have any ideas?

 

[Mandrake]

RE: the extent to which the 'intelligence' of an individual was a factor in her or his success in the society in which she or he lived, before the Industrial Revolution. But not in isolation, in relation to other factors.

My feeling is that a person's smarts was at best a minor factor in their social or economic success, in pre-Industrial Revolution societies, throughout the world (some possible exceptions).

The time period in question would go back to points before recorded history and would cover all of the planet. The "smarts" of people living in the Arctic were probably of great importance, on an individual level. Likewise, the Mongoloids who were tested by the Ice Age presumably survived or perished on the basis of their intelligence (as discussed in various places by Richard Lynn).

Why did you state the time in terms of an event that didn't happen instantly, and didn't happen at the same time throughout the world? In fact, it still hasn't happened in some places. What year do you define as the start of the industrial revolution and why? 1700? 1774? 1873? other?

First, almost all human social groups were patriarchal, so (with some exceptions) one's gender/sex was clearly a dominant factor.

There isn't much doubt about that. The sexes have not been equal, with minor exceptions, and that inequality of standing presists today under most religions, especially Islam.

 

[Nereid]

The time period in question would go back to points before recorded history and would cover all of the planet.

Yes, but I'm particularly interested in larger social groups, and those whose food sources were obtained largely by means other than hunting and gathering (why? well, as you say, much of the history of Homo sap. for these is available only through archaeology, which can't really say much about social structure for hunters and gatherers, let alone how 'smarts' would have helped - or hindered - an individual to gain a high social status).

The "smarts" of people living in the Arctic were probably of great importance, on an individual level. Likewise, the Mongoloids who were tested by the Ice Age presumably survived or perished on the basis of their intelligence (as discussed in various places by Richard Lynn).

There's no doubt that social groups of humans needed to have, collectively, a number of different skills and capabilities to survive ... and these skills probably varied a lot between groups living in different places and at different times.

Why did you state the time in terms of an event that didn't happen instantly, and didn't happen at the same time throughout the world? In fact, it still hasn't happened in some places. What year do you define as the start of the industrial revolution and why? 1700? 1774? 1873? other?

The key transition I'm interested in - as a boundary - is that to a manufacturing-based economy, which first happened in the UK, and more or less coincided with the advent of control of infectious diseases there. That's also the endpoint for everywhere in the world, because (with some notable exceptions) independent local history pretty much came to an end around then too (and earlier in many places, with the beginning of European colonialism). So yes, it's a fuzzy endpoint.

Here's an example of why I think an individual's 'smarts' had little impact on her or his ability to influence social status and economic wealth: take the example of a slave, either born a slave, or captured, or condemned to slavery for a 'crime' ... no matter how smart the slave was (or how lacking in smarts), there was little she or he could have done to change her status. Similarly, if you were a king, you were born to it and would die a king; short of a palace coup (which would have resulted in your death) or invasion (ditto), your status would not be open to change, no matter how bright you were. On the wealth side, a really smart king may have been able to amass more wealth for himself, and a less bright one lose much, but a king would still likely be the wealthiest person in the society.

 

[Mandrake]

There's no doubt that social groups of humans needed to have, collectively, a number of different skills and capabilities to survive ... and these skills probably varied a lot between groups living in different places and at different times.

The specific skills needed for survival obviously depend on location and circumstance, but all have in common the adaptability of the people to deal with real time demands. It is for that reason that intelligence proved to be important. The population groups that were more intelligent were able to invent things that were not developed by less intelligent groups. If you simply examine the Negroid population groups, you can easily see the huge number of missing elements (per my prior comments). Most of these elements (such as written language, large ships, roads, governmental infrastructure, currency, legal systems, powerful weapons, advanced metals, etc.) were developed in all Mongoloid and Caucasoid cultures.

The key transition I'm interested in - as a boundary - is that to a manufacturing-based economy, which first happened in the UK, and more or less coincided with the advent of control of infectious diseases there.

Wouldn't the advent of the steam engine be particularly important in fixing that unspecified date? The industrial revolution was based on machinery and manufacturing. Even fixing the date of the steam engine is difficult, since one must sort through the date of invention, the first use (about 1762), and widespread use.

Here's an example of why I think an individual's 'smarts' had little impact on her or his ability to influence social status and economic wealth: take the example of a slave, either born a slave, or captured, or condemned to slavery for a 'crime' ... no matter how smart the slave was (or how lacking in smarts), there was little she or he could have done to change her status.

On a statistical basis, I agree. Of course, Spartacus raised an army of 120,000 in about 1 year.

Similarly, if you were a king, you were born to it and would die a king; short of a palace coup (which would have resulted in your death) or invasion (ditto), your status would not be open to change, no matter how bright you were. On the wealth side, a really smart king may have been able to amass more wealth for himself, and a less bright one lose much, but a king would still likely be the wealthiest person in the society.

I get the impression that you are viewing about 100,000 years of history from the perspective of European history of just a few hundred years ago. Perhaps it is true that all of the rest of the world, throughout all of that time, followed the same pattern we see in Europe? For much of the time peroid in question, people presumably lived in small tribes. It is my understanding that small (make that very small) breeding groups were necessary for biological changes to become established (formation of the differences we see between population groups). For that reason, it may be more important to the understanding of the variance in intelligence, for us to understand what was going on during the migration out of Africa, than to worry about anything that happened as recently as 5,000 or fewer years ago.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The real human need for any transition is originality. Somebody has to come up with the new idea. History suggests that it is very very rare for anyone human being to come up with more than one groundbreaking idea, so you need at least a few people in every generation to get ahead. What could favor or inhibit this? Obviously both nature and nurture come into play. The steam engine could have been invented in the Roman empire; they had Heron's steam whirlygig and they also had force pumps to pump out mines. Somebody needed to put two and two together, but no-one did.

 

[NoahAfrican]

I think that in this discussion, we should limit our argument to deductive and inductive reasoning born from the generally agreed upon recorded history of Homo Sap. These individuals who google for studies that support their theories on genetic racial inferiority should be considered out of bounds, due to the fact that none here have the ability to independently reproduce and corroborate their findings as valid.

One has to seriously look at answering the question of how did the Sub Saharan African survive so many thousands of years. Not only survive, but actually flourish, as recorded by some of the first European explorers to enter the interior of Africa. Ultimately, the goal of all life is survival and reproduction to continue the blood line. Thus this is the measure of biological intelligence and strength, if not intellectual intelligence and strength. We all know that the Sub Saharan African has the highest population growth rate in the world, while the wealthy nations of European descent generally have the lowest population growth rate. One can argue that there have been creators far more intelligent than the cock roach, yet, few, if any, has had the longevity and ability to survive and perpetuate its bloodline and species as it has.

For analogy, let us look at the juxtaposition of a sprinter vs. the marathon runner in head to head competition. How does one determine which is superior at a point in time in the race? The answer is that one cannot unless one knows where the finish line is. The shorter the distance between the starting point and the finish line, the increased probability that the all out expenditure of energy will produce the sprinter as superior. However, the longer the finish line is from the start, the increased probability that the sprinter strategy is that of the fool, while the slow pace of the marathon runner is that of true biological intelligence. The reason being is that the marathon strategy conserves and paces energy for the future and long run.

In light of this analogy, the fact that at a point in time one race may be ahead of another is meaningless outside the context of knowing where the finish line is. For example, take the scenario of a race that becomes so knowledgeable that the knowledge ultimately resulted in instruments of humanities own destruction. How intelligent should that be considered, for the biological prime directive of survival and the perpetuation of the blood line? I am not sure that the term is appropriate, but such would be the product of intellectual intelligence, but a drought in emotional intelligence. On the other hand, the so-called more primitive race would have ensured a longer human existence, even if the quality of life of this race was less than that of the knowledgeable race who advance to their own destruction.

Living closer to harmony with nature makes one more vulnerable to nature, but at the same time, it offers a greater longevity for humanity. The exponential increase in science of the modern man has increased the probability of our own self destruction exponentially as well. Everything is a trade off and true intelligence and wisdom recognizes this fact.

 

[Evo]

The specific skills needed for survival obviously depend on location and circumstance, but all have in common the adaptability of the people to deal with real time demands. It is for that reason that intelligence proved to be important. The population groups that were more intelligent were able to invent things that were not developed by less intelligent groups. If you simply examine the Negroid population groups, you can easily see the huge number of missing elements (per my prior comments). Most of these elements (such as written language, large ships, roads, governmental infrastructure, currency, legal systems, powerful weapons, advanced metals, etc.) were developed in all Mongoloid and Caucasoid cultures.

Why do you feel the need to single out black populations in Africa? There are other populations around the world that also fit your descriptions. Why do you make the assumption that it was lack of intelligence and not lack of necessity?

I've noticed this pattern in your posts and was curios as to why you single out blacks.

 

[Prometheus]

For analogy, let us look at the juxtaposition of a sprinter vs. the marathon runner in head to head competition. How does one determine which is superior at a point in time in the race?

Good analogy.

 

[Mandrake]

Why do you feel the need to single out black populations in Africa?

I don't have nor feel a need. In the context of the discussion, the example of non-accomplishment is most extreme in Sub-Saharan population groups. It is also a group I have seen first hand.

There are other populations around the world that also fit your descriptions.

Probably so. The people of Australia might fit the bill. Would you like to give us a complete list for discussion purposes?

Why do you make the assumption that it was lack of intelligence and not lack of necessity?

I have previously addressed this. The clue is the mean IQ as measured in various Sub-Saharan African nations. I assume you are familiar with Lynn's book on this topic.

I've noticed this pattern in your posts and was curios as to why you single out blacks.

Because the material happened to relate to the discussion. That differs from some of your comments to me, which have added nothing to the thread. Perhaps you would be interested in reading material that does not discuss this topic:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=289570#post289570

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=289563#post289563

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=289530#post289530

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=288583#post288583

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=287968#post287968

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=287945#post287945

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=287932#post287932

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=285614#post285614

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=285447#post285447

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=280615#post280615

 

[NoahAfrican]

Well, suffice it to say, one of the victories of America is that it has at least risen to the degree of ostrasizing racist and making such taboo. One of the worst insults that you can fling upon many white Americans is the label of racist. THus, one should never expect an individual to be forthcoming about their racial prejudice. Racist have changed places with the gay population in that they have switched places as closet dwellers. Now the gays are out struting their stuff, while the racist are in fear of being seen as the social parasites that they are.

In light of this, I cannot say that Mandrak is a racist, however, I can say with confidence that most people who are racist would never make that admission, either due to ignorance or deciet. However, one thing is for sure and that is the fact that Mandrak has decided to propogate the belief that blacks are intellectual inferior. Given that the internet is a super market where one can find a study to respresent their preconcieved notions, the studies they pick simply represents what they WANT to believe. Thus, it is my opinion that Mandrak simply wants to believe that blacks are genetically inferior...because that makes him superior, as a general rule, in juxtaposition, by virtue of membership.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The IQ gap does not say blacks are dumber than whites; about 10% of blacks are smarter than the average white, and black geniuses can and do exist. Anybody who works in a modern city office can, as a result of EEO, testify to the smart blacks in the work force.

When it comes to the other end of the scale, there are about equal numbers of very low IQ whites and blacks. And it's notable that the blacks in this category seem to do for themslves a lot better than the low IQ whites do.

 

[plus]

When it comes to the other end of the scale, there are about equal numbers of very low IQ whites and blacks. And it's notable that the blacks in this category seem to do for themslves a lot better than the low IQ whites do.

Where do you get your proof of this from? Is it based upon the higher white standard deviation, which also leads to far more white geniuses than blacks and more than the east asians, who have a slightly higher average iq.
I am not sure what you mean that the blacks with lower IQ do better for themselves than similarly low IQ whites. You mean economically?

 

[NoahAfrican]

Some of you just kill me with your statistics and all. Statistics do not prove the WHY, it just demonstrates the what is. Furthermore, there are so many variables to control for that simply noting IQ scores, simply notes IQ scores.

Personally I have taken three IQ test, in my opinion, such test are a bogus means of measuring intelligence. My average score was 139...so I am not a disgruntled objector due to my own failures. Rather, what immediate obvious to me is that the test simply measure pattern recognition ability. That is not a flawed means of measuring intelligence in the abstract, however. The problem emanated in going from the abstract to the formal education and culturally biased questions used as the conduit . The less biased question were the ones which did not use words, but rather, pictures or numbers. Still, If you take a bushman from Kenya who has never been formally educated about number and math, despite having a high IQ, such an individual would not recognize the mathematical patterns, because the concept is foreign to his or her environment.

In essence, the IQ test measures one formal education, culture, environment and the ability to recognize the patterns that manifest their of. Also, using my own life and experience as a template, I know that performance is greatly correlated with ones degree of interest. Courses that I had interest in I excelled in, while courses that I had little interest in became problematic. I was never interested in my GPA, which was about 1.5 in high school. Had I been interested in a High GPA, then that would have given me increased incentive in learning subjects that I had no interest in. I was more interested in sports at the time.

This whole TESTING as a means of measuring aptitude and capacities is almost completely bogus…but is sure makes some of you feel good about yourselves in juxtaposition…doesn’t it? We all want to be winners and one way to achieve that is to simply discredit others as losers…thus gaining immediate separation and rank as a member of a superior team, group or race….That’s psychology 101...lifting oneself up by trying to put others down.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Where do you get your proof of this from? Is it based upon the higher white standard deviation, which also leads to far more white geniuses than blacks and more than the east asians, who have a slightly higher average iq.
I am not sure what you mean that the blacks with lower IQ do better for themselves than similarly low IQ whites. You mean economically?

The equal numbers at lower IQs are due to the gap in the distributions plus the differnce in the numbers of the populations. A smaller fraction of the large population is about equal to the larger fraction of the smaller population.

By get along better, I mean able to circlulate in the community and deal with everyday matters. Whites of this category are often institutionalized. Blacks seem to be able to do for themselves. No specific link for this, although there are numerous stories about it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Some of you just kill me with your statistics and all. Statistics do not prove the WHY, it just demonstrates the what is.

Exactly.

Furthermore, there are so many variables to control for that simply noting IQ scores, simply notes IQ scores.

Not so. Very good controls on large populations are available.

Personally I have taken three IQ test, in my opinion, such test are a bogus means of measuring intelligence. My average score was 139...so I am not a disgruntled objector due to my own failures. Rather, what immediate obvious to me is that the test simply measure pattern recognition ability.

Pattern recognition is a highly g-loaded cognitive ability, and thus does measure your g. So do othe highly g-loaded abilities.

That is not a flawed means of measuring intelligence in the abstract, however. The problem emanated in going from the abstract to the formal education and culturally biased questions used as the conduit . The less biased question were the ones which did not use words, but rather, pictures or numbers. Still, If you take a bushman from Kenya who has never been formally educated about number and math, despite having a high IQ, such an individual would not recognize the mathematical patterns, because the concept is foreign to his or her environment.

The High IQ Bushman would learn modern concepts faster than a low IQ Bushman.

In essence, the IQ test measures one formal education, culture, environment and the ability to recognize the patterns that manifest their of.

This contradicts your previous statement. IQ is not the sum of cultural learning, but the relative ability to acquire that learning is IQ dependent.

Also, using my own life and experience as a template, I know that performance is greatly correlated with ones degree of interest. Courses that I had interest in I excelled in, while courses that I had little interest in became problematic. I was never interested in my GPA, which was about 1.5 in high school. Had I been interested in a High GPA, then that would have given me increased incentive in learning subjects that I had no interest in. I was more interested in sports at the time.

Could you say what were the subjects that interested you? With a 139 IQ (even given variabilty in the tests) you would be good at g-loaded subjects like math and science. Often we find things interesting when thinking about them rewards us with insights.

This whole TESTING as a means of measuring aptitude and capacities is almost completely bogus…but is sure makes some of you feel good about yourselves in juxtaposition…doesn’t it? We all want to be winners and one way to achieve that is to simply discredit others as losers…thus gaining immediate separation and rank as a member of a superior team, group or race….That’s psychology 101...lifting oneself up by trying to put others down.

It just isn't bogus, and the motivation for studying it isn't trying to lift ourselves above others. I am white and of Christian background. I view with equinamity and even pleasure the fact that East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews have higher IQ didributions than my folks do. I feel that high IQ people have a duty to support low IQ people , whatever "variety" or "subtype" they belong to. One of the warmest relationships I've ever had was with a Down syndrome individual.

 

[Mandrake]

Where do you get your proof of this from? Is it based upon the higher white standard deviation, which also leads to far more white geniuses than blacks and more than the east asians, who have a slightly higher average iq. I am not sure what you mean that the blacks with lower IQ do better for themselves than similarly low IQ whites. You mean economically?

In the US, the Black mean IQ is below the white mean. The IQ difference between US Blacks and Whites of European descent is given by Jensen as 1.36 SD [P. 17 The _g_ Factor]

Occupation and income related to psychometric g
Helmuth Nyborg, Arthur R. Jensen
Intelligence 29 (2001) 45-55

Table 1
Percentage of Whites and Blacks within each interval (in percentiles for total sample) of g factor scores

Percentile of g factor scores
Group___10__20___30____40___50___60____70____80____90___100
White__5.9__6.4___9.1__11.4__7.2__12.___11.7___12.1___9.2__14.3
Black__33.9_18.7__19.3__12.3__4.6___3.8___3.6___1.8___1.8___0.2

The indicated percentiles represent the upper limit of each interval.

Intelligence and Social Policy: A Special Issue of the Multidisciplinary Journal INTELLIGENCE. Edited by Douglas K. Detterman. Jan/Feb 1997 (Vol 24, No.1).

The military, unlike the private sector, discriminates based on race right up front. They do not allow low intelligence recruits to enter the military. The lowest intelligence levels allowed are Army 85, Marines and Air Force 88, and the Navy 91! And what does this mean for affirmative action. Well, taking the army for example, over half of all blacks do not qualify with an average IQ of 85. All one has to ask is why is it all right for the Army to discriminate based on intelligence, but a business can't? Why the double standard? And using the same statistical data, the Navy is allowed to eliminate 65% of all blacks from consideration (that is, 65% fall below the 91 IQ cut off).
===

The Nyborg, Jensen paper I referenced shows that the Black and White racial regression lines for income versus intelligence cross at the 40th percentile. Above that point, Black income exceeds that of Whites. The authors note: "However, in the present study sample the overall average income of Bs is only 77% that of Ws, given that in the total study sample 84.2% of Bs are below the 40th percentile of g scores compared to 32.8% of Ws, and 67.2% of Ws are above the 40th percentile compared to 15.8% of Bs."

For ALL percentiles, the job status index for Blacks exceeds that for Whites (index plotted against _g_ percentiles) with the gap increasing linearly as intelligence increases.

These rather recent observations are consistent with similar observations reported in The Bell Curve.

 

[Mandrake]

Well, suffice it to say, one of the victories of America is that it has at least risen to the degree of ostrasizing racist and making such taboo. One of the worst insults that you can fling upon many white Americans is the label of racist.

I agree. Liberals and blacks have succeeded in forging this word into a weapon that they can use to harass anyone with whom they disagree. It has become the basic tool for the promoters of political correctness. The term is usually used mindlessly and in a manner that exposes ignorance and churlishness. If the people who sling this word were otherwise fair and well informed, they would have to use it to describe the hiring practices of the National Basketball League, other sports groups, and in connection with any recognition of the superior performance of Asians in intellectual pursuits.

However, one thing is for sure and that is the fact that Mandrak has decided to propogate the belief that blacks are intellectual inferior.

I have repeated the scientific findings of the past 100 years, which have consistently shown that the mean IQs of various population groups are not identical. Is that racist? If you think so, I would like to suggest that you have no idea of what constitutes racism. For examples of real racism, please study the history of Japan and Germany at the time of WW2.

As for population groups, the highest mean is found among Ashkenazi Jews.
After that, in order of decreasing means, we have Asians, whites of European descent, Hispanics, US blacks, and Sub-Saharan Africans, to name some of the prominent groups. It has been over 75 years since Spearman's Hypothesis was recorded; since that time there has been much effort expended to disprove it, but the result has been to prove the hypothesis beyond doubt.

Anyone who believes that IQ tests are biased against blacks should take the time to read Jensen's Bias in Mental Testing. This massive book examines IQ tests in detail and shows under what circumstances they are biased and under what circumstances they are not. Standard IQ tests are not biased against blacks. It is well documented that those tests are slightly biased in favor of blacks, by virtue of their external validity. That is, blacks perform less well than other groups in colleges and jobs as compared to individuals in those other groups with identical IQ scores.

The findings of Bias in Mental Testing were rejected by liberals on the basis of their non-scientific "feelings" as to how the results should have turned out. As a result they demanded and got the National Academy of Sciences to review the findings. The result was that the National Academy of Sciences found that there was (as Jensen had meticulously reported) no bias in IQ tests that caused lower scores for blacks. [This information is widely reported. One source is P. 83 of Miele (2002) - Intelligence, Race, and Genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen]

 

[Mandrake]

Furthermore, there are so many variables to control for that simply noting IQ scores, simply notes IQ scores.

I note that you noted yours.

Rather, what immediate obvious to me is that the test simply measure pattern recognition ability.

Properly constructed IQ tests measure the significant second order factors and _g_. This is typically done with a variety of test item formats, most of which are not based on pattern recognition.

The less biased question were the ones which did not use words, but rather, pictures or numbers.

How did you determine the bias in test items? Did you measure the relative difficulty of those items for various groups, or did you simply guess? If the latter, what makes you think that your guess was correct? Claims that test items are biased have been examined in detail and reported in the literature. The claims were usually based on someone making armchair assertions and turned out to be false when scientifically examined. Is your assertion scientifically based? If so, did you do the analysis, or can you supply a good reference for the items in question?

In essence, the IQ test measures one formal education, culture, environment and the ability to recognize the patterns that manifest their of.

IQ is not a measure of education, whether formal or otherwise. IQ stabilizes at about the time a child enters school. If it were affected by education, we would see people with identical starting IQs diverge in measured IQ according to the years of education they received. That does not happen. IQ cannot be taught and it cannot be boosted by social, institutional, or family social interactions.

This whole TESTING as a means of measuring aptitude and capacities is almost completely bogus…but is sure makes some of you feel good about yourselves in juxtaposition…doesn’t it?

If IQ testing were bogus, there would be no interest in it. In reality, there is a lot of interest in it. As I have pointed out before, the US military uses IQ testing to block people from the military if they score below the various minimum standards established by the services. The reason this is done (even in time of war) is that the military knows it cannot realistically deal with the slow rate of learning for those people. IQ acts as a threshold for many tasks at all levels of difficulty, but is particularly noticeable at the high end, since cognitively demanding careers cannot be mastered by people below the associated thresholds.

 

[NoahAfrican]

The fact that you all can note statistics, point to studies that break statistics down by race, then use statistical theory in regards to mean, averages, standard deviation and other mathematical models and concepts proves NOTHING.

I have no problem accepting the fact that blacks have lower IQ scores and college placement scores. Moreover, I have no problem accepting the fact that the GPA of black high school students are probably lower than most other groupings as well. However, the statistics are not in question, what is in question is the conjecture that is being exposed in regards to the WHY of these statistics.

Honestly, what is the relevance of bringing up the racial breakdown of IQ and test scores, if one is not trying to use that information as the bases for logically deducing or rationalizing other things in regards to races? If any of you think that I would be credulous enough to accept that you are simply presenting science, with no ulterior motive, I will disappoint you.

Humans, as most other animals live in social structures centered on rank. Rank is paramount in competitive constructs. Thus, for humans to say that their individual rank or team/group/race/tribe rank is not of psychological importance is likely void of self introspection of their own humanity. Certainly it varies from one degree or another, but all humans are conscious of rank or status, which is a relative phenomenon that can only be gauged by juxtaposing with others. Consequently, these studies on IQ simply give rationalization of the current order of the world, which is essentially white domination. Thus, one can rationalize the poverty of the masses of blacks and other non whites to be the produce of inferiority, while ignoring the history of imperialism, colonization, slavery and cold war geopolitics which adversely affected blacks and other non white peoples.

As I said before, I can say with every once of honesty within me that the IQ test that I have taken measured mostly my formally learned intellect. It did not measure my genetic intellect. I know this for a FACT. I cannot speak in regards to others experiences or extrapolate my experience to be true for all. However, the fact that these test were an invalid means of measuring my genetic intelligence level, leads me to invalidate these test as a valid bases to deduce black genetic inferiority. You all can think what you want…what ever floats your boat…just do not get upset when you are labeled racist…because your thinking falls directly in line with the racist ratings of my parents generation, their parents engraftation and so on and so forth. What makes you folks who rationalize these things any different from the folks who did in the 1800’s? They used state of the Art science to come to their conclusion and studies and so are you. The truth is that there is little difference. The only likely difference is in emotions. Many of you might not accompany your theories of black genetic inferiority with any hatred, where as in the past…most racist were guilty of being emotional, as well as rational, racist.

The primary reason that people hate to be called racist is simple. It is born from the phenomenon captured in the old adage “The truth HURTS”.

Furthermore, stating ones group indentity (white Christian) does not give one any more credibility in regards to ones motives. In fact, given the history of whites and christians in regards to the slave trade...stating that you are a member of these groupings my hurt your credibility more than help it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well there are two reasons for studying differential IQ distributions in society. One is that they are a demonastrable, and objective, fact, and we ought to sit down before a fact like a little child. The other is that understanding it prevents policy disasters like the No Child Left Behind Act. Here is the shorter NCLB: We will give all the schoolchildren a heavily g-loaded test. And if any school's pupils score below average on that test, it is the school's fault, and the school will be punished, by being denied funds. The framers of that act refused to believe that there was any inherent reason why one population would score lower than another, except bad teaching. We are now reaping the whirlwind that this blindness sowed.

 

[Prometheus]

Well there are two reasons for studying differential IQ distributions in society. One is that they are a demonastrable, and objective, fact,

I wonder what you mean by objective. Are you saying that IQ tests provide an objective measure of absolute intelligence, or that they provide a useful guide even though the inherent bias is not well understood?

 

[Prometheus]

As I said before, I can say with every once of honesty within me that the IQ test that I have taken measured mostly my formally learned intellect. It did not measure my genetic intellect.

I am not disagreeing with you. Could you elaborate as to what you mean by genetic intellect.

leads me to invalidate these test as a valid bases to deduce black genetic inferiority.

I place little value on tests that claim to determine the genetic inferiority of blacks. It is not that I consider that they are wrong in an absolute sense, but that they are right only within a narrow context of use which is typically not recognized or exagerated.

You all can think what you want…what ever floats your boat…just do not get upset when you are labeled racist…because your thinking falls directly in line with the racist ratings of my parents generation, their parents engraftation and so on and so forth.

Surely you must recognize that when you claim that those who have opinions that are different from you are racist, you do not promote respect for your ideas or forward your cause. Not everyone is a racist. Since you are the one who is calling so many others a racist, my only conclusion is that either you are extremely defensive, or that you are a racist. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using that word.

 

[Mandrake]

Honestly, what is the relevance of bringing up the racial breakdown of IQ and test scores, if one is not trying to use that information as the bases for logically deducing or rationalizing other things in regards to races?

Some people have an interest in understanding human behavior as a science, not as an emotion. There are large variances in human performance in virtually every category, from lung capacity, to muscular strength, and on to many other factors, including _g_. We can seek to find the root causes of these things or we can try to intimidate those who seek truth. It is obvious that you have thought about this and made a choice.

Consequently, these studies on IQ simply give rationalization of the current order of the world, which is essentially white domination.

That seems to be the way things have turned out. It is very difficult to imagine how a group can dominate another group when the former has not met the demands of developing the important features of modern civilization.

Thus, one can rationalize the poverty of the masses of blacks and other non whites to be the produce of inferiority, while ignoring the history of imperialism, colonization, slavery and cold war geopolitics which adversely affected blacks and other non white peoples.

The above comment seems very restrictive and lacking in world perspective. There has been no slavery in the US since 1865, yet slavery has been practiced as recently as the 1940s by both Germany and Japan. Before slavery was seen in the US, it was commonly practiced throughout much of the world, especially in Europe. The experience of slavery in the US has been a minor piece of the history of slavery. The primary outcome of US slavery has been that it resulted in an admix of 25% white genetic composition for US blacks, which has translated into a significantly higher mean IQ for US blacks than is found in Sub-Saharan nations. However reprehensible slavery was in the US, the long term impact of it has been the largest IQ boost that has been recorded for any population group.

As I said before, I can say with every once of honesty within me that the IQ test that I have taken measured mostly my formally learned intellect.

How do you know this? Are you a psychometrician? If not, can you direct us to any psychometric papers which show that any standard IQ test "mostly measures formally learned intellect?" (Whatever that is supposed to mean.) Intelligence cannot be learned. IQ tests can be degraded by study, but the effect is not one of increased intelligence; it simply causes an increased _s_ loading, which amounts to a lowered test validity, since that causes the _g_ loading to decrease.

It did not measure my genetic intellect.

How did you determine that? The value of h^2 by late adolescence is about 70% and increases to about 80% late in life. The remaining variance is divided between environmental factors and error. Of the environmental factors, virtually all are due to the micro environment and are chemical and biological in nature.

I know this for a FACT.

Your emphasis on "fact" does nothing to increase the validity of your assertion. How do you know this? If you really know it as a fact, this would be good material for a peer reviewed psychometric journal, since it would represent a new finding.

However, the fact that these test were an invalid means of measuring my genetic intelligence level, leads me to invalidate these test as a valid bases to deduce black genetic inferiority.

Do you mind listing the tests in question by name? We should know if they are standard IQ tests or something else. What means did you use to determine what they were measuring? What means did you use to determine your "genetic intelligence?" Are the procedures you used for these two determinations standard within psychometric science, or known only to you?

You all can think what you want…what ever floats your boat…just do not get upset when you are labeled racist…

Yes. Please call anyone a racist. It will intimidate some and not others. In any case, it adds nothing to the discussion and does not establish that you have any grounding in the assertions you wish to advance.

Many of you might not accompany your theories of black genetic inferiority with any hatred, where as in the past…most racist were guilty of being emotional, as well as rational, racist.

When logic and knowledge fail, the best nest step is to resort to name calling. It does not require any proof or defense. Can you think of some additional insults to make your rant even more effective?

The primary reason that people hate to be called racist is simple. It is born from the phenomenon captured in the old adage “The truth HURTS”.

Perhaps the primary reason people use name calling is that they lack any other means of communication. In this case the issue is indeed about truth. It apparently hurts you so much that it drives you into a frenzy of name calling. Were you sweating when you wrote the "racist" remarks?